Tuesday, June 04, 2019

Justice Thomas raises the eugenics issue

Justice Clarence Thomas wasn’t willing to let Indiana’s nondiscrimination rule die a quiet death. Instead, he wrote an astonishing 20-page concurring opinion declaring that the rule is clearly constitutional—and, in the process, condemning many women who obtain abortions as willing participants in eugenicide. ...

Abortion, he wrote, “is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.” Thanks to “today’s prenatal screening tests and other technologies, abortion can easily be used to eliminate children” due to some trait or abnormality. Indeed, Thomas wrote, abortion is a “disturbingly effective tool for implementing the discriminatory preferences that undergird eugenics.” He cited the high abortion rate for fetuses with Down syndrome and the “widespread sex-selective abortions” in Asia as evidence. And he noted that the nationwide abortion rate “among black women is nearly 3.5 times the ratio for white women.”

This is interesting, but sex-selective abortions would have no effect on the sex ratio of Indiana. Many parents do have the technology to choose a boy or girl today, and the choices are about evenly divided.

Thomas is not really arguing the merits of abortion, but raising the issue of whether a state can consider a eugenic effect as a rationale for its policies. Someday it will be seen as bizarre that our culture prohibits discussing eugenic effects.

Abortion has largely eliminated Down's Syndrome in many places. It has also eliminated millions of unwanted black babies, as well as white babies of career-oriented feminist women.

When California gives free abortions to poor women, it is encouraging the eugenic reduction of those poor people.

Jews are particularly opinionated about how eugenics should be done.

Adam Cohen wrote an Atlantic mag rant against Thomas. He is flattered that Thomas cited his book on eugenics, and does not claim that Thomas made any errors, but he is mad that anyone would write about eugenics without accepting the Jewish agenda on the subject. He ends with some comments on how Jews should use immigration to replace white people.

These days, anti-Jewish sentiment in civilized nations (and especially in the U.S.) has largely dropped the superstitious mumbo jumbo for “real world” beefs about Jews’ politics. Ironically, the most recent anti-Jewish mass shooters were not angry at Jews for being Jews (a massive shift from historical anti-Semitism). Instead, they were angry at Jews for helping to facilitate the mass importation of invasive Third World immigrants. The killers took a simple political fact — Jews in the U.S. lean left and generally support open-border policies — and loonied it up into “If I kill some kikes, it’ll keep the beaners out.”

Generally speaking, far-rightists in the U.S. who hate Jews hate them more for their politics than for their identity. Whites, on the other hand, are totally hated by leftists just for being white. Whites are now hated for the exact same reason Jews were hated in the past: They exist. The parallels between current anti-whiteness and old-timey Jew hatred are strong. Whites are born cursed (white privilege), and they walk the earth to torment the good and the decent. Everything bad that exists today, and everything bad throughout history, has been because of the white menace.

I am not sure that "old-timey Jew hatred" ever existed. There is no corroboration for the Bible stories of Jews being Egyptian slaves, or for a lot of other Jewish persecution stories. The Nazis hated the Jews primarily for their politics. I have never even heard of anyone hating Jews for their identity.